Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Foster parents lose child over gay confusion.

I'm thinking confusion is probably the wrong word in the title but I have only had one cup of coffee this very morning and my head is deeply congested. The trees for the forrest analogy I wanted to use wasn't working either. Also if I was speaking instead of typing that would have been, 'by heb id deebly condested' so bear with me.

Now I read the following story this morning and was struck almost immediately with confusion and botheration. As the world and it's mother knows I have gay friends and I love them dearly. For the record, being an frightful agnostic, I don't believe in god, I don't think the bible is the literal word of anyone, I don't believe in discrimination on sexual orientation and I get a deep pain in my inner ring piece when I read something like 'gays CHOOSE to be gay'. Right, that's like saying I chose to have delightful ankles. I didn't, I was born this way.Are we all clear? Good.But I am old and I am from the country and I went to a catholic boarding school, a nifty combination that means I have dealt with all manner of weird folk who have differing view on things. And the older I get the more I accept that is the way the world works and there's just no point in getting all het up about shit like that. Pick your battles. If someone say something stupid in front of you pull them on it. If someone emails you with contrary views, pull them on it. If someone makes another suffer because of how they are, speak up.But what if there was no cause for action. What if a person thought a certain way, did not act on it, and were too old to be any different? What if everything about them was gold star, except for one ridiculous view.Let me give you a quick glimpse into my botheration today. From that bloody addictive rag the Mail....

"They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."

The couple, who have six grandchildren and one greatgrandchild, are both ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church.

When they first started fostering they took in young single mothers and their babies.

More recently they have been caring for children of primary school age.

Mr Matherick added: "It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen.

"There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules.

"They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date. They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.

"How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe?"

Quite. Now A part of me wants to say why doesn't he just sign the bloody thing and why on earth doesn't he understand that being gay is no more against the word of god than being black or curly haired. But then I thought more of it. These people are deeply committed christians and as unpalatable as their view on homosexuality might be, they have their opinions and their faith and they live by their christian beliefs- which in itself is no bad thing. There is a lot of good in religious folk and I think ANYONE who takes on the difficult and generous task of raising a foster child is a special sort of person. Also these people are in their 60s and are hardly going to change the way they think at this stage ow are they? Then there is their track record. They appear by all accounts a genuinely loving couple who have opened their home up time and time again to help children in dire need of love and stability, and this is how they are repaid? One aspect of their beliefs has been singled out and they are being punished for it. How many families openly discuss a gay lifestyle with their children? How many families discuss any sort of sexual lifestyle with their 11 year old children? Is there such a wealth of foster families willing to take on older children in Britain that the foster services are happy to remove a child due to his other wise exemplary Christian foster parents being unwilling or unable to go against their firmly held beliefs?I would have called CG but he's on his way out of the country, so I called FG instead.'French Gay!' I said.'I need your opinion on something.''Oo iz thees?''Me, Fatmammycat.''Fatbabbycab? Alorzzz... snorg snorg snog...'Anyway the French brat finally stopped laughing long enough to give consideration to my question. What did he think?And he thought that the poor child was then one to lose out, that he's being removed from a loving home of two years with two people who cared for his well being and development, he thought his own parents didn't foster a great tolerance for the being gay but they just had to put up with it and they mellowed later in life. He thought most families did not do a whole lot of talking about sexual matter with their children apart from the rudimentary 'be safe and don't come home pregnant/get a girl pregnant'. He thought a stable home was more important than to be a pawn of a liberal council and he wondered aloud about the future of this boy when he was removed from his home of two years and plonked into a hostel and questioned how that bettered the life of that child.'But don't you think they should talk to him about a gay lifestyle?''Offf, if 'e is gay 'e weel findz out 'eimself, non?''Probably. Thanks dahling.''Sorg sorg, you soundz 'orrible.'So anyhoo, there we have it. On the one hand these christians have funny views on stupid things on the other, they have good hearts and a willingness to live and love and nourish a fledgling person.I know which one I'd rather support.How 'bout you?

69 Comments:

"How many families openly discuss a gay lifestyle with their children? How many families discuss any sort of sexual lifestyle with their 11 year old children?"

I was thinking just that as I read. Unfortunately the government deems we should all be exactly the same flavour of vanilla. They want us to be completely homogeneous. The vast majority of parents don't discuss sexuality or even sex, as your friend said it doesn't stop people from working out that they're gay.

I didn't listen to the radio yesterday but no doubt some prick was arguing on Radio 5 live about how much better off the foster system would be without these narrow minded fogeys.

Velly interseting debate FMC (and from the feckin Mail of all papers!).

I'd side with the well-being of the kid - his interests must be paramount, and dragging him from a loving home doesnt sit well with me.But then I suppose it depends on how 'devout' the foster parents are - would they disown the child if he stayed with them and did turn out to be gay? Would the child then resort to self harm etc?

s'okay BB, I knew what you meant.Conan, I have no idea. If a gay couple adopt are they obliged to sign a form saying that they will explain the 'straight lifestyle' to their young children? I have no idea. Or will it just be understood that kids will figure it out one way or another.

The parents are probably like a lot of christians in that they follow the 'hate the sin love the sinner' way of thinnking. If they are the sort of people who are happy to open their home to single women and their babbies I doubt they'd turn their back on a child who was gay.

Biologically speaking, gay parents don't have to have adopted to have become parents. It seems illogical that adoptive or fostering parents might be obliged to do something that is not equally incumbent on biological parents.

Docky 2, I watched half of that and my toes curled up and I had to stop. No really.Conan, I suppose there are more limitations set out for foster and adoptive parents for a reason, but this seems to be taking things to another level entirely.

That's just it Manuel, I don't think they were doing anything worse than following their creed. Now I'm not down with the usual rabble who dictate how everyone else should live their lives, phoey on them I say, but these two seem to be suffering for living theirs.

I see your point, FMC, but religious people have used their creed to justify all manner of discrimination and oppression from African slavery, antisemitism, the Burning Times/Inquisition, and women's subordination.Why does their belief become more important than human rights?

The part about having to talk to an 11 year-old about gay sex seems highly suspect and I don't know why it would be included if only to then weed out people who think that they can't get their mind around it.

I don't think think any creed is that important, mainly because I think religious beliefs are man made constructs and the religious in general are the biggest pile of cherry-pickers ever.But in this case, I'm willing to bet this couple live by their beliefs, all evidence would suggest it (well all evidence gleaned form a single article) and as such I wonder at the wisdom of denying a child their home because of their personal views-assuming their views are not to the detriment of that child's upbringing.

This is a tough one. I see both sides of this argument - and the well-being of the child is definitely being sacrificed for someone else's ideologies. Not worth it.

The parents may well be generous, well-meaning people, but their belief system is poisonous. And the social services department (though probably well-meaning) is overstepping its bounds to dictate what families MUST discuss or not.

I'm stuck on this one. Should the parents just have lied, signed the form and just said "Hey kid, there's gays in the world, deal with it. Okay, social services, we've discussed it. Happy now?"

On the contrary I would think the lack of religion is a key factor in the breakdown of morals and values in modern society regardless of how fictitious or underhanded the church was or is, it served a vital purpose, it regulated society and set high standards of living. Not only has respect for the church has diminished it has been replaced by pathetic celebrity role models, the glorification of greed and open corruption. This case is a testament to that. Some idiot Politian wants to secure votes so jumps on the equality bandwagon. Forcing people to sign a document which obliges them go against their own beliefs is not only at odds with our virtues of free will but a perfect example of immoral and corrupt behaviour. And now that poor child will suffer. Why make such a big deal of being gay/straight anyway, thats bias in itself. Well if that is the fruits of equality it can go and fuck of with itself.

PS are you sure the decision to remove the child was nothing to do with their appearance?

I was led to believe through the delightful nuns in boarding school that 'teh gays' were not the norm either, but damn if I didn't thumb my nose at that one the second I met one in 2nd year. If the parents aren't ramming their beliefs down the child's throat I don't mind them believing whatever the hell they like. Oh but I don't have any answers either, their beliefs go against every fibre of my understanding. But there again, I just wonder what's going to happen to the child now and is removing him from his home of two years for no other reason other than his parents christian beliefs really the best way to deal with his future.

I'm happy to say I've never spoken with any of my children about consensual anal sex, be it between hetero or gay partners.

Nor have I gone into any detail on any other heterosexual or homosexual fun and games.

I have never been asked to sign any document attesting my willingness to do such a thing, and if I had been asked I would have refused. In the eyes of the UK authorities that would render me unsuitable as a foster parent.

What I actually did, and still do, was pass on whaterever beliefs I have so that they can make of them what they will as they make their own way in the world. It's pretty much how I was brought up myself.

"all evidence gleaned form a single article" - that may be the crux of the issue FMC - the Mail would obviously be sympathetic to the god-botherers for standing against the Evil Gay Empire (TM), Muuuhahahahaha!

Nonny - "(the church) regulated society and set high standards of living" - you'd rather we went back to the magdalene laundries, power-crazed priests and a freedom-stifling society? The church in Ireland had its shot and f**ked up entirely by its own fault, don't look back on it with rose-tinted glasses.

Political correctness has gone a bit mad here in the UK. People with the oddest range of opinions can still manage to rear well adjusted kids. Kids tend to grow up with their very own opinions, often very different to their parents/guardians. The only instance I would imagine it appropriate to discuss this would be if the child was obviously gay and maybe needed reassurance that it was OK for him to be comfortable with his sexuality. Otherwise, why confuse and embarrass the kid? Nothing more embarrassing than a parent talking about sex.

Sheepy I don’t mean all glory and honour to the church or anything like that I just mean the ideals of religion are admirable, it is good for children to have faith and guidance. What else is there besides religion that offers people guidance and promotes kindness? If we all lived by the Ten Commandments the world would be a wonderful place, regardless of whether you where gay, straight or just plain mad. Today’s children are warped, no structure and nowhere for them to turn. All this ADHD, little Jonny time, lets talk explicitly about sex and such it is outrageous what happened to the preservation of innocence, the freedom to enjoy childhood. 11 year olds don’t need to know about gay sex or any other sex for that matter.

See, Nonny, I don't believe we need religious dogma to make good moral decisions. If you're doing the right thing to avoid going to hell, that's not as healthy a motivation as doing good just because you empathize with others and don't want to be an asshole towards them.

I don't think it was the right decision to take a well-cared for child out of a stable, loving home because of this.

They could have signed and complied and done all that the law demanded of them regarding homosexual education of their ward but a kid will know what his parents beliefs are deep down anyway.

Surely foster parents have the right to their own religion and beliefs too. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest the couple in this case were infecting kids with their own religion or intolerances. I think the state, in this instance is being more draconian than the foster-parents. I happen to agree with the state on the need for respect and acceptance of gays in our society but mandating viewpoints like this to clearly extraordinarily generous and loving people is not the right way to win hearts and minds.

Religion is, to my mind, responsible for a whole lot of evil, but in this case it seems the couple are more invested in the positive things than the negative. If they could be persuaded not to preach against gays I think that should be enough (there's nothing to say they've been hating anyway). They took in the unwed girls and their babies so it seems fair to say they aren't overly judgmental - like you say Cat they probably practice the old "Hate the sin love the sinner" thing. To ask them to abandon their beliefs and actively - to their minds - promote something they believe to be wrong might be a step too far by the state. Whatever happened to freedom of belief even if it is unpalatable to others?

I think if anything this case will only cause attitudes to harden against gays by people who lean that way anyway. Net result - a loss. Nobody is happy and the world still isn't a better place - it might even be slightly worse.

'The parents may well be generous, well-meaning people, but their belief system is poisonous. And the social services department (though probably well-meaning) is overstepping its bounds to dictate what families MUST discuss or not.'

I couldn't agree more. The thing is, even though signing that piece of paper possibly goes against every moral fibre in the parents' bodies-chances are if they had a gay child in their home, they wouldn't treat them any differently, anyway. Often I think that's what you find with people whose belief systems remain in the early 19th century - they may quietly disapprove, but strike them down before they actually foister their beliefs on others. Unless, of course, they're arrogant twats - and then they deserve to be publicly flogged.

Conan - they weren't actually asked to explain the mechanics of gay sex. They were asked to discuss 'sexuality' with an 11-year-old. That's actually pretty par for the course - it's relationships and feelings and periods and all that stuff.

They didn't have to break out the dildos and tell the kid he'd better be gay, or else. They just had to agree to say that some people are attracted to/fall in love with people of the same sex, and that's all right. And if the child did turn out to be gay, they had to be supportive of his choice, and take him to gay teen support groups and whatever else. And, I'm sorry, but I've no fecking sympathy for them if they can't bring themselves to do it.

'Hating the sin not the sinner' is a cop out if ever I heard it. No child should feel their legitimate feelings and actions are hated by their parents. Hating the sin fucks a kid up just as much.

I agree the social services should have left the child with them until they placed him somewhere else, not sent him to a hostel. But it's the couple who resigned from his care, and it's their fault he's being moved again.

Oh and a big personal peeve is the whole 'political correctness gone mad'/'the government is out to turn us all into homogenous liberals!' trope that's been trotted out in some of the comments. Foster parents have constraints placed upon them because they are being given the charge of very vulnerable children. Those children have rights, and it's society (by means of the govt and council and so forth) who have to protect those rights and see to it that these kids are put places where they'll be properly taken care of.

Golly, Dinogirl, what a load of utter piffle - are the parents not entitled to have their choices acknowledged - or is it all one way, on the basis of some idiot and probably childless, social worker's subjective ideology? And your comment "No child should feel their legitimate feelings and actions are hated by their parents. Hating the sin fucks a kid up just as much." Also piffle, my parents hated many of my feelings and actions, as do most normal parents. And I ain't fucked up. In fact I would have hated my parents to approve of everything I felt and did - that would have spoilt my adolescence completely!

Well stated, Dinogirl.I'm with you there on thinking that these folks are not suited to parenting if they think it's wrong to be gay. They are also both ministers and I've never heard of one of them yet who didn't sermonize or consider it their mission to "save" people, especially the young and unformed minds out there.

Medbh, I don't think they stated it was wrong to be gay, they just didn't want to discuss or promote the lifestyle. The concept probably never entered their heads. I expect they would be equally uncomfortable discussing any kind of sex with an 11 year old, or maybe even with each other! They are from a generation that probably still have sex with their nighties on. As for the sermonizing, most of us have had lots of that from parents, aunties, uncles, friends, teachers (or in my case the dreaded nuns) - and do we take any notice? No - we have our own inbuilt bullshit protector. FMC, if you ever do a blog on hated new and made up words, can you add the word "parenting" to your list? Ugh!

Hi FMC I haven't read all the comments but it just seems that if people have negative views such as theirs about homosexuality then this is wrong and they probably shouldn't be looking after children, regarless of the good-natured fogeys bit. If they had similar issues about race, would good natured-ness be ok in that case too?We can't tell birth parents or adoptive parents how to raise their kids but fostering is different, we should expect the best and expect that they aren't bigots.Just sayin' like....... ;-)

Normally I would agree wholeheartedly, and I'm not even sure why this couple gives me pause as I find their stance on homosexuality ridiculous. It's just that from what I've read this particular couple don't speak out against homosexuality, they just can't bring them selves to speak for it either. And having fostered 28 children, opening their homes and hearts to those who need shelter most- I find it very hard to do my usual dance of condemnation. Also I feel very sorry the little boy in the centre of it all and think plonking him into a hostle staggering.I have very mixed feeling on it, that's why I blooged it and it's interesting to see what everyone else thinks.

The Law on no descrimination against sexual preference , was not speaking of homosexuality, it was based on males and females having the same respect in pay and jobs. As we see our Laws is being misused for other reasons that it was not intended for.. just as people who use Freedom of speech Law in ways that are just wqas not intended for , when the Law was formed.. To make the Law do just the opposite of what it was created for.. now we have lawlessness being formed , by misusing the Law .. And Yes..there is God Almighty , who says in His word woman was created form Adam.. God's creation ,no man can change.. and whether you believe in God or not , it does not change Truth , you can never omit God, ..

I never would have thought this world would ever turn out like it has in this Generation of no morals and no respect for Families and children who need a Mom and a Dad .. I think homsexuals have no morals , same sex can not naturally keep Generations going ..they need the opposite sex for embryo or sperm ..for this fact , they should realize God did not create them to be with the same sex.. God told Adam and Eve . (not Eve with Kay or Adam with bob) to be fruitful , meaning to have children of their own flesh and blood . or Parents who adopt that are Dad and Mom. Studies show children without a Mom or a Dad, they suffer.. mentally ..Man and woman have different roles the children need to grow up with the nuture of two parents a Dad and a MOm.. Homosexuals can never give to children what a Dada and a Mom, and or a Male and Female Foster parents can give them.. stability.I think homsexuals have their own agenda and no care of what affects they put on children..Children are not stupid, they know what is right and what is not right..When they see kids in a Dad and Mom family with more children,Believe me the child in a same sex house (not a family,but tries to impersonate a family)never can be a family without a Dad and a Mom . (Male and Female)they see the difference.Homosexuality is an attack on Families , they have no right to attack families like they have done and stil are doing, they destroy what a Family is..Now they are aiming at our babies..all for the sake of them wanting to be excepted in public eye. they seem to be selfish to me..

"I think homsexuals have no morals" Good, keep on making sweeping statements, it does a body good to come right out and be openly idiotic.

"Homosexuality is an attack on Families'How? If a Jack and Jill have kids how are Ben and Gerry who live down the street in a committed relationship an attack on their family. This is a tired, pointless and usually ill thought out statement.If you're gay, you're gay, no ifs ands or buts, but if you're straight and you want kids, then what has one got to do with the other?The whole 'God told Adam' is a crock of anecdotal poppycock. Unless you were there toots, you don't know who said waht or to whom-assuming genesis is correct and assuming there was A a God, B) and Adam, or C) a talking snake. THis is the wrong blog t start that line on.Now I don't want to disrespect your beliefs and I won't insult you, but perhaps you'd be better off moving along to where talking snakes and Adam and Eve stories might be better appreciated.

HUmm..interresting.. if you are gay you are gay.? (born gay?). so is child molesters , they are bornchild molesters.? do you think they were born that way ,should we except them also to adopt children . may be alittle drastic but next they will protest and try and win their rights.. because they think they were born that way also. and incest in families do you think they were born that way also, should they be able to live that life in open view also? Humm what about rapists were they born that way also , should they have the same rights as those who sodimize ? really.

Hey Anonymous - do you really mean that - or are you just 'aving a laugh? I mean, what you are saying seems so totally ludicrous that I think you are just taking the piss. What is the blog equivalent of a mockumentary ? A blogumentary? A mog ?

"HUmm..interresting.. if you are gay you are gay.? (born gay?). so is child molesters , they are bornchild molesters.?'I'm going to be more tolerant than I would normally be in this question. Do you understand the difference between mutual adult consent and the base unlawful, carnal abuse of power that is rape and child molestation? Because if you do not you need to educate yourself, and if you do then you need to stop conflating the two to satisfy your own 'agenda'. Is is always a sad state of affairs when Christians who should no better try to bait others. Very little is mentioned in the bible about being gay apart from a subjective line in Leviticus, a book of the bible that also contain many other suggestions that christian choose to conveniently forget.Jesus himself never mentioned anything at ALL about being gay while he made his way about the desert with his twelve male friends. So you want to base you understanding of people and sexual orientation on one line of the OT in a man written book, translated over the years from many different languages? I see. And on this shaky evidence you would condemn millions of people who live blameless lives.Do you have any idea how ludicrous that makes your thinking?AS a woman with gay friends I find your views tiresome. I don't go to christian blogs and rail against them for believing in whatever they wish to believe, so why don't you run along now and take your judgmental self with you.

Thanks for the unique tips discussed on this blog site. I have seen that many insurance companies offer customers generous savings if they prefer to insure many cars with them.A significant variety of households possess several automobiles these days, particularly people with more mature teenage children still located at home, along with the savings on policies might soon mount up.

I precisely wished to thank you very much yet again.I do not know what I would have done in the absence of the basics shared by you regarding that theme. It has been the frightening matter for me, but finding out a new specialized style you managed that took me to jump with delight.Now i am happier for the support and in addition believe you are aware of a powerful job that you are undertaking training most people via your webpage.Most likely you've never come across all of us.

Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up.The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer. I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I'd post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the issue solved soon.Thanks

I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will definitely work.Still, the posts are very short for beginners. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.

Woah! I'm really enjoying the template/theme of this website. It's simple,yet effective. A lot of times it's hard to get that "perfect balance" between user friendliness and visual appearance. I must say you've done a awesome job with this.

I have observed that online diploma is getting favorite because getting your degree online has changed into a popular solution for many people.A lot of people have never had a possibility to attend a regular college or university yet seek the increased earning possibilities and a better job that a Bachelor Degree affords. Still some others might have a diploma in one discipline but would like to pursue something they now possess an interest in.

Very good blog you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics discussed here?I'd really love to be a part of group where I can get responses from other experienced individuals that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Bless you!

About Me

I'm a bouncy, opinionated, messy haired marathon running (!) bibliophile. I wear high heels and have delightful ankles. I'm a devoted drinker. I want a French Bulldog puppy whom I shall call Batman and dress in capes on occasion.
I would also like a pug, whom I shall name Mister Woo. He can remain capeless, but I will make sure he wears a diamante collar at all times.
Both dogs will submit to repeated snorgling and high pitched squeals that only a dolphin would normally tolerate.
I hate Reiki/psychics/mystics/frauds with all my liver. Also, I'm firmly against Jazz and poetry/poems/pomes/ peoms or any of that stuff. I believe in the healing power of ginger.